Re: Compiler version expectations
On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation schedule is not very clear. Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and GCC 4.4 in the near term. GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No specific bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it on the next release train. This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? What C++11 features specifically? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: >> After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation >> schedule is not very clear. >> >> Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 >> for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and GCC >> 4.4 in the near term. > > GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No specific bug > or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it on the next > release train. > >> This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 features >> in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from upstream. Are there >> reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? > > What C++11 features specifically? This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ -Jeff ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
I was thinking it would be nice to support VS2010 as long as any of our main channels use it -- meaning we could drop it on the first day of 39. But I have no practical justification for that. If it causes a burden on Skia work then it might be reasonable to switch sooner. > This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ What MS compiler does that list require? There's a number of people building with VS2012, would that still be supported? David - Original Message - > From: "Jeff Muizelaar" > To: "Ehsan Akhgari" > Cc: "dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org list" > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:14:19 AM > Subject: Re: Compiler version expectations > > > On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > > On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > >> After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation > >> schedule is not very clear. > >> > >> Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 > >> for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and > >> GCC 4.4 in the near term. > > > > GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No specific > > bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it on > > the next release train. > > > >> This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 > >> features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from > >> upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in > >> the 37-38 time frame? > > > > What C++11 features specifically? > > This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ > > -Jeff > > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 2014-10-16 12:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No > specific bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support > for it on the next release train. MSVC 2010 means we have to maintain a separate no-AVX2 config for the media playback code. I will be happy to see that requirement go. -r ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
Type aliasing requires 2013, but we can probably keep them from using that for now. I don’t think asking them to support VS2012 will be too much of a burden. -Jeff On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:29 PM, David Major wrote: > I was thinking it would be nice to support VS2010 as long as any of our main > channels use it -- meaning we could drop it on the first day of 39. But I > have no practical justification for that. If it causes a burden on Skia work > then it might be reasonable to switch sooner. > >> This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ > What MS compiler does that list require? There's a number of people building > with VS2012, would that still be supported? > > David > > - Original Message - >> From: "Jeff Muizelaar" >> To: "Ehsan Akhgari" >> Cc: "dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org list" >> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:14:19 AM >> Subject: Re: Compiler version expectations >> >> >> On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: >> >>> On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: >>>> After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation >>>> schedule is not very clear. >>>> >>>> Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 >>>> for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and >>>> GCC 4.4 in the near term. >>> >>> GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No specific >>> bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it on >>> the next release train. >>> >>>> This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 >>>> features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from >>>> upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in >>>> the 37-38 time frame? >>> >>> What C++11 features specifically? >> >> This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ >> >> -Jeff >> >> ___ >> dev-platform mailing list >> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >> ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 10/16/2014 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation schedule is not very clear. Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and GCC 4.4 in the near term. This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? I can't speak to the GCC issue, but we intend to continue support for MSVC2010 at least through the 36 train, in case a regression is found which is serious enough to cause us to revert. If there are no serious issues found, I think it is reasonable to require MSVC2013 in six weeks. If we do that, I'd want somebody to actually make 2010 fail early in configure. --BDS ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On Oct 16, 2014, at 14:49, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation > schedule is not very clear. > > Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 > for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and GCC > 4.4 in the near term. > > This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 features > in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from upstream. Are there > reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? > > -Jeff Does MSVC 2013 run on Windows XP? We still support Win XP for the browser; do we support building on it? Syd Polk sp...@mozilla.com +1-512-905-9904 irc: sydpolk ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Syd Polk wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2014, at 14:49, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > >> After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation >> schedule is not very clear. >> >> Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 >> for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and GCC >> 4.4 in the near term. >> >> This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 features >> in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from upstream. Are there >> reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? >> >> -Jeff > > Does MSVC 2013 run on Windows XP? We still support Win XP for the browser; do > we support building on it? > > > Syd Polk > sp...@mozilla.com > +1-512-905-9904 > irc: sydpolk > > > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform There's no reason to continue supporting compiling on XP. - Kyle ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 10/16/14 12:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? Firefox 38 will become the next ESR. I don't know if that means we should drop old compilers *before* the ESR or after, but it should probably inform the decision. chris ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 2014-10-16, 5:01 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 10/16/14 12:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? Firefox 38 will become the next ESR. I don't know if that means we should drop old compilers *before* the ESR or after, but it should probably inform the decision. Why? ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 2014-10-16, 5:02 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: On 10/16/2014 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation schedule is not very clear. Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and GCC 4.4 in the near term. This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? I can't speak to the GCC issue, but we intend to continue support for MSVC2010 at least through the 36 train, in case a regression is found which is serious enough to cause us to revert. If there are no serious issues found, I think it is reasonable to require MSVC2013 in six weeks. If we do that, I'd want somebody to actually make 2010 fail early in configure. I'd happily do that: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1084056 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
Can you please ask them to not use variadic templates too? That also seems to require MSVC 2013. On 2014-10-16, 4:33 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: Type aliasing requires 2013, but we can probably keep them from using that for now. I don’t think asking them to support VS2012 will be too much of a burden. -Jeff On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:29 PM, David Major wrote: I was thinking it would be nice to support VS2010 as long as any of our main channels use it -- meaning we could drop it on the first day of 39. But I have no practical justification for that. If it causes a burden on Skia work then it might be reasonable to switch sooner. This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ What MS compiler does that list require? There's a number of people building with VS2012, would that still be supported? David - Original Message - From: "Jeff Muizelaar" To: "Ehsan Akhgari" Cc: "dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org list" Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:14:19 AM Subject: Re: Compiler version expectations On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation schedule is not very clear. Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and GCC 4.4 in the near term. GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No specific bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it on the next release train. This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? What C++11 features specifically? This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ -Jeff ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 10/16/14 2:27 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2014-10-16, 5:01 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 10/16/14 12:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? Firefox 38 will become the next ESR. I don't know if that means we should drop old compilers *before* the ESR or after, but it should probably inform the decision. Why? Would dropping older compiler support include ESR alongside mozilla-central? I assumed dropping an older compiler after ESR forks meant Rel Eng would need to maintain an extra toolchain for another year. And, though unlikely, fixes uplifted to ESR couldn't use any newer C++ features not supported by the old compilers. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 2014-10-16, 6:24 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 10/16/14 2:27 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2014-10-16, 5:01 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: On 10/16/14 12:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in the 37-38 time frame? Firefox 38 will become the next ESR. I don't know if that means we should drop old compilers *before* the ESR or after, but it should probably inform the decision. Why? Would dropping older compiler support include ESR alongside mozilla-central? No. It will happen on mozilla-central, and will ride the trains down to Aurora. Note that by "dropping support" what I mean is adding a configure check that tells you your compiler is unsupported and fails the build if you use MSVC < 2012. > I assumed dropping an older compiler after ESR forks meant Rel Eng would need to maintain an extra toolchain for another year. And, though unlikely, fixes uplifted to ESR couldn't use any newer C++ features not supported by the old compilers. Yes, exactly. I guess I misunderstood what you meant. I am suggesting to drop support for MSVC 2010 *before* Gecko 38 in order to avoid the issues you mentioned above. I think we are in agreement! ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
Syd Polk wrote: Does MSVC 2013 run on Windows XP? We still support Win XP for the browser; do we support building on it? You can't create a stock build on XP since the latest SDK is 7.1 and the gamepad code needs 8.0 and the DirectX code would like it too. -- Warning: May contain traces of nuts. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
So I just spoke with Callek about his plans to move SeaMonkey off of their existing Windows 2003 builders that cannot install Visual Studio 2012 or newer, and it seems like Dec 15th is a date that will probably work fine for SM, and that is still within the Gecko 37 cycle. Jeff, can we hold off the Skia update plans until that date? Thanks! On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > Can you please ask them to not use variadic templates too? That also > seems to require MSVC 2013. > > > On 2014-10-16, 4:33 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > >> Type aliasing requires 2013, but we can probably keep them from using >> that for now. I don’t think asking them to support VS2012 will be too much >> of a burden. >> >> -Jeff >> >> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:29 PM, David Major wrote: >> >> I was thinking it would be nice to support VS2010 as long as any of our >>> main channels use it -- meaning we could drop it on the first day of 39. >>> But I have no practical justification for that. If it causes a burden on >>> Skia work then it might be reasonable to switch sooner. >>> >>> This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ >>>> >>> What MS compiler does that list require? There's a number of people >>> building with VS2012, would that still be supported? >>> >>> David >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> >>>> From: "Jeff Muizelaar" >>>> To: "Ehsan Akhgari" >>>> Cc: "dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org list" >>> org> >>>> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:14:19 AM >>>> Subject: Re: Compiler version expectations >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler >>>>>> deprecation >>>>>> schedule is not very clear. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using >>>>>> GCC 4.4 >>>>>> for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 >>>>>> and >>>>>> GCC 4.4 in the near term. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No >>>>> specific >>>>> bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it on >>>>> the next release train. >>>>> >>>>> This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 >>>>>> features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from >>>>>> upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers >>>>>> in >>>>>> the 37-38 time frame? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What C++11 features specifically? >>>>> >>>> >>>> This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ >>>> >>>> -Jeff >>>> >>>> ___ >>>> dev-platform mailing list >>>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >>>> >>>> >> > -- Ehsan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
I think that’s manageable. -Jeff On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > So I just spoke with Callek about his plans to move SeaMonkey off of their > existing Windows 2003 builders that cannot install Visual Studio 2012 or > newer, and it seems like Dec 15th is a date that will probably work fine for > SM, and that is still within the Gecko 37 cycle. Jeff, can we hold off the > Skia update plans until that date? > > Thanks! > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > Can you please ask them to not use variadic templates too? That also seems > to require MSVC 2013. > > > On 2014-10-16, 4:33 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > Type aliasing requires 2013, but we can probably keep them from using that > for now. I don’t think asking them to support VS2012 will be too much of a > burden. > > -Jeff > > On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:29 PM, David Major wrote: > > I was thinking it would be nice to support VS2010 as long as any of our main > channels use it -- meaning we could drop it on the first day of 39. But I > have no practical justification for that. If it causes a burden on Skia work > then it might be reasonable to switch sooner. > > This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ > What MS compiler does that list require? There's a number of people building > with VS2012, would that still be supported? > > David > > - Original Message - > From: "Jeff Muizelaar" > To: "Ehsan Akhgari" > Cc: "dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org list" > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:14:19 AM > Subject: Re: Compiler version expectations > > > On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > > On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler deprecation > schedule is not very clear. > > Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using GCC 4.4 > for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 and > GCC 4.4 in the near term. > > GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No specific > bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it on > the next release train. > > This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 > features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from > upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these compilers in > the 37-38 time frame? > > What C++11 features specifically? > > This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ > > -Jeff > > ___ > dev-platform mailing list > dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform > > > > > > > -- > Ehsan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
Callek, can you please confirm that the Dec 15th date is still good for you? I'm planning to land a patch to drop support for MSVC 2010 on that day. Thanks! Ehsan On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > > I think that’s manageable. > > -Jeff > > On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > > So I just spoke with Callek about his plans to move SeaMonkey off of their > existing Windows 2003 builders that cannot install Visual Studio 2012 or > newer, and it seems like Dec 15th is a date that will probably work fine > for SM, and that is still within the Gecko 37 cycle. Jeff, can we hold off > the Skia update plans until that date? > > Thanks! > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Ehsan Akhgari > wrote: > >> Can you please ask them to not use variadic templates too? That also >> seems to require MSVC 2013. >> >> >> On 2014-10-16, 4:33 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: >> >>> Type aliasing requires 2013, but we can probably keep them from using >>> that for now. I don’t think asking them to support VS2012 will be too much >>> of a burden. >>> >>> -Jeff >>> >>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:29 PM, David Major wrote: >>> >>> I was thinking it would be nice to support VS2010 as long as any of our >>>> main channels use it -- meaning we could drop it on the first day of 39. >>>> But I have no practical justification for that. If it causes a burden on >>>> Skia work then it might be reasonable to switch sooner. >>>> >>>> This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ >>>>> >>>> What MS compiler does that list require? There's a number of people >>>> building with VS2012, would that still be supported? >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> - Original Message - >>>> >>>>> From: "Jeff Muizelaar" >>>>> To: "Ehsan Akhgari" >>>>> Cc: "dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org list" >>>> org> >>>>> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:14:19 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: Compiler version expectations >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler >>>>>>> deprecation >>>>>>> schedule is not very clear. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using >>>>>>> GCC 4.4 >>>>>>> for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with VS2010 >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> GCC 4.4 in the near term. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No >>>>>> specific >>>>>> bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it >>>>>> on >>>>>> the next release train. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 >>>>>>> features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from >>>>>>> upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these >>>>>>> compilers in >>>>>>> the 37-38 time frame? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What C++11 features specifically? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ >>>>> >>>>> -Jeff >>>>> >>>>> ___ >>>>> dev-platform mailing list >>>>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> > > > -- > Ehsan > > > -- Ehsan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
I said in irc yesterday that SeaMonkey is NOT ready yet, however I see no reason to change the plan of record. I expect us to have a good solution in less than a month. (As in yes go ahead and land that patch) Thank you for the followup. On Dec 13, 2014 1:07 PM, "Ehsan Akhgari" wrote: > Callek, can you please confirm that the Dec 15th date is still good for > you? I'm planning to land a patch to drop support for MSVC 2010 on that > day. > > Thanks! > Ehsan > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Jeff Muizelaar > wrote: >> >> I think that’s manageable. >> >> -Jeff >> >> On Oct 20, 2014, at 2:54 PM, Ehsan Akhgari >> wrote: >> >> So I just spoke with Callek about his plans to move SeaMonkey off of >> their existing Windows 2003 builders that cannot install Visual Studio 2012 >> or newer, and it seems like Dec 15th is a date that will probably work fine >> for SM, and that is still within the Gecko 37 cycle. Jeff, can we hold off >> the Skia update plans until that date? >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Ehsan Akhgari >> wrote: >> >>> Can you please ask them to not use variadic templates too? That also >>> seems to require MSVC 2013. >>> >>> >>> On 2014-10-16, 4:33 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: >>> >>>> Type aliasing requires 2013, but we can probably keep them from using >>>> that for now. I don’t think asking them to support VS2012 will be too much >>>> of a burden. >>>> >>>> -Jeff >>>> >>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 4:29 PM, David Major wrote: >>>> >>>> I was thinking it would be nice to support VS2010 as long as any of >>>>> our main channels use it -- meaning we could drop it on the first day of >>>>> 39. But I have no practical justification for that. If it causes a burden >>>>> on Skia work then it might be reasonable to switch sooner. >>>>> >>>>> This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ >>>>>> >>>>> What MS compiler does that list require? There's a number of people >>>>> building with VS2012, would that still be supported? >>>>> >>>>> David >>>>> >>>>> - Original Message - >>>>> >>>>>> From: "Jeff Muizelaar" >>>>>> To: "Ehsan Akhgari" >>>>>> Cc: "dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org list" < >>>>>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org> >>>>>> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 9:14:19 AM >>>>>> Subject: Re: Compiler version expectations >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 16, 2014, at 3:57 PM, Ehsan Akhgari >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2014-10-16, 3:49 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> After some discussion some IRC it was clear that our compiler >>>>>>>> deprecation >>>>>>>> schedule is not very clear. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now that we’re using VS2013 on trunk and will soon not being using >>>>>>>> GCC 4.4 >>>>>>>> for B2G, I expect we’ll be dropping support for building with >>>>>>>> VS2010 and >>>>>>>> GCC 4.4 in the near term. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> GCC is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1077549. No >>>>>>> specific >>>>>>> bug or plans for MSVC2010, but I'd be open to killing support for it >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> the next release train. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is important to us because Skia is planing on using more C++11 >>>>>>>> features in the near term and we’d like to continue updating from >>>>>>>> upstream. Are there reasons we can’t drop support for these >>>>>>>> compilers in >>>>>>>> the 37-38 time frame? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What C++11 features specifically? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This set: http://chromium-cpp.appspot.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> -Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> ___ >>>>>> dev-platform mailing list >>>>>> dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org >>>>>> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Ehsan >> >> >> > > -- > Ehsan > ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 2014-12-13 1:12 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: I said in irc yesterday that SeaMonkey is NOT ready yet, however I see no reason to change the plan of record. I expect us to have a good solution in less than a month. (As in yes go ahead and land that patch) Thanks! For those who are interested, please follow along in bug 1084532. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 12/13/2014 12:12 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: I said in irc yesterday that SeaMonkey is NOT ready yet, however I see no reason to change the plan of record. I expect us to have a good solution in less than a month. (As in yes go ahead and land that patch) Thunderbird is not yet ready. -- Joshua Cranmer Thunderbird and DXR developer Source code archæologist ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 2014-12-13 1:36 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: On 12/13/2014 12:12 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: I said in irc yesterday that SeaMonkey is NOT ready yet, however I see no reason to change the plan of record. I expect us to have a good solution in less than a month. (As in yes go ahead and land that patch) Thunderbird is not yet ready. What does it take to switch over Thunderbird? How long do you think it would take? Thanks, Ehsan ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Compiler version expectations
On 12/14/2014 9:41 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: On 2014-12-13 1:36 PM, Joshua Cranmer 🐧 wrote: On 12/13/2014 12:12 PM, Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: I said in irc yesterday that SeaMonkey is NOT ready yet, however I see no reason to change the plan of record. I expect us to have a good solution in less than a month. (As in yes go ahead and land that patch) Thunderbird is not yet ready. What does it take to switch over Thunderbird? How long do you think it would take? It needs MSVC 2013-based builds to work. This turns out to not be as quite as easy as I had thought (debug builds are failing). Given my timescale and access to resources, if I have to do it and it doesn't get done this week, it won't happen before the new year. -- Joshua Cranmer Thunderbird and DXR developer Source code archæologist ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
